Keith Stokes-Smith, c/o the Manor House, Wolborough Street, Newton Abbot, writes:

I would refer to your thought provoking Comment column in the August 10 edition of the Newton Abbot Mid-Devon Advertiser in relation to the publication of the latest Teignbridge Local Plan (Core Strategy) and the concluding words in the 21 page General Introduction which you say states: 'As previously stated, the popularity or otherwise of a policy is not a material factor in looking at the final draft Local Plan. These are recommendations that will be made on planning grounds and will be considered by the elected councillors of Teignbridge.'

You then go on to suggest, I believe, that a number of councillors may lose their seats in due course, presumably reflecting the lack of support for the plan's proposals by 83 per cent who took part in the Newton Abbot consultation.

I was part of that 83 per cent statistic having submitted my own circa ten pages of comment, having spent circa a week reading the first Draft Core strategy and typing up my response.

My response incorporated comments/suggestions/recommendations based upon a variety of input ie. what I felt to be common sense, imagination, thinking outside the box, open mindedness, and my knowledge of the subject matter and of the area. Other responses could have incorporated or been based solely upon personal bias.

Accordingly, many of the responses, particularly the latter, may have been to no avail and this is where the closing words of the Introduction to the Local Plan are most relevant to us, like it or not!

To be worth their while, representations have always needed to have had merit within the framework of national government laid down policies.

It may well have been the case that some of my representations and those of others coincidentally, fell nicely within a policy; ie. I might have identified the existence of a rare species growing somewhere in a field where it was proposed to build houses and there was a national government policy to protect any field where they grew. but if no such policy existed, my representations may have not been worth the paper they were written on.

This, in my opinion, is where the system from the outset fails the public; if we are serious about 'consultation', then the public need to have easily available to them, in a format easily understood, data detailing what these national government policies are.

Impossible, someone will say; too complex, they are always changing etc. etc. but then do not be surprised that the public merely express views of a populist nature which may not be material. Even if all relevant data was available to the public to make a meaningful representation, how many have the time and skills to do so?

As for the councillors on the planning committee, they are at the end of what can be a lengthy process.

The data they are presented with will be as the planners wish to present it with their interpretations of policies/legislation and their emphasis, degree of 'consideration' and bias; councillors rely upon the planners to supply them with a balanced report they can rely upon in making a decision.MORE LETTERS IN OUR DIGITAL EDITION